News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

How can we make a distinction between those guys when the expert are biased.

I like the distinction between college and education. That means that many people are educated and some go to college. I try to be with: 'we, the people". In general, I describe the behavior of climber who learned by climbing or people whit behavior that I don't understand . I remembered that one day, I sit in front of upper refuse and look where the guy place there pro. All those who learned by climbing use praticaly the same distance and the same spot.

"These preventable epidemics are "an artifact of the anti-vaccination movement, which has associated the vaccine with autism," the LA Times' Michael Hiltzik wrote. "That connection, promoted by the discredited British physician Andrew Wakefield and the starlet Jenny McCarthy, has been thoroughly debunked. But its effects live on, as the [CFR] map shows."

From web MD:

Certain HPV types are classified as "high-risk" because they lead to abnormal cell changes and can cause genital cancers: cervical cancer as well as cancer of the vulva, anus, and penis. In fact, researchers say that virtually all cervical cancers -- more than 99% -- are caused by these high-risk HPV viruses. The most common of the high-risk strains of HPV are types 16 and 18, which cause about 70% of all cervical cancers.

But,

Actual cervical cancer is rare in the U.S. because most women get Pap tests and have abnormal cells treated before they turn into cancer. The American Cancer Society predicts that about 12,170 women will find out they have cervical cancer in the U.S. this year. They also say that roughly 4,220 women will die of the disease the same year.

So perhaps the STD vaccination is not needed at this time due to the US medical system. However, we don't know where are children will be in 30 years, so why not prevent it all together from posing a risk.

Now I am not a doctor, but my wife is, and I can guarantee that there is no way she would ever intentionally inject something into our child's body that had a slight chance of harming her.

Now I am not a doctor, but my wife is, and I can guarantee that there is no way she would ever intentionally inject something into our child's body that had a slight chance of harming her.

ALL medical procedures carry some risk. If your wife actually believes what you say then I would never use her as a doctor. Not that I actually go to the doctor anyway...since they feed at the corporate trough. There is a fund that the goobermint set up to compensate people who are injured by vaccinations, because in our "free market" system corporations always win. You can't sue the makers of vaccinations. I would LOVE that kind of a job!

Google it if you need the link, this is just one of the many cases:

Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism David Kirby Huffington Post 14th January 2013.

The children in the successful new cases are Ryan Mojabi aged 10 from Northern California and Emily Moller.Hannah Poling developed an autistic condition after receiving 9 vaccines in one day. Following the US government conceding her case in 2008, her damages award over her lifetime is reported to be US$20 million: After the story broke in 2008, the US Centres for Disease Control Director Julie Gerberding conceded on US national broadcast TV that vaccines can cause autistic conditions. And the US Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA] also confirmed to CBS News that vaccines can cause autistic conditions: Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines.

So she's getting 20 million dollars because the vaccinations were "safe and effective?"

The only studies linking autism to vaccines have long been defunct. You ask the people who claim this link exists to show you any data, and they can't. But, they rather go on spewing rhetoric that really has no relation to the argument or things that simply aren't true. As far as your comment being that pharmacies won't perform double blind studies since they are unethical because there is no link and vaccines are safe, I highly doubt that is why they aren't done. You would be hard pressed to find an ERB willing to sanction a study that would randomly assign children to possible developmental harm, especially if there is no evidence to suggest a link. Its not a big pharmacy thing, its an ethics in research thing. Most data of this sort isn't necessarily from experimental design, especially for initial collection. But rather, other study designs are implemented to first see if there is a possible link before a true experimental design is attempted. If there is no correlation, why go through the risk and cost to evaluate for causality?

The fact of the matter is that a child is more likely to suffer negative consequences of a contagious disease rather than any of the proposed negative impacts of vaccines at this point (always possible we could find something later that further supports the use or having us think "man that was a horrible idea." That's the beauty of science-- it is self-correcting). Sometimes these zealots are good as they may reveal a new idea to look in to. But for the most part, its just fear mongering based on emotion. The tool of the uneducated going on emotion rather than any sort of evidence, just as the original poster stated.

I have strong views on childhood vaccines, but don't mean my statements as an attack on you, so please don't interpret it that way. But rather just taking examples from what you said to illustrate the point. Some one could have made a comment regarding the same scenario about something like tie in points or safety of air bags and I would have brought up the same points if they were pertinent.

I never said that vaccinations cause autism. Frankly, I don't know. I go back to my original statement. There are ZERO double blind studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Therefore, their safety and effectiveness is unknown.

All of the published studies compare a vaccinated control group with the group getting one more vaccination. It is like "proving" that smoking one camel cigarette a day does not cause cancer when the "control" group smokes a pack of marlboroughs.

I have looked high and low. There is no scientific proof that vaccinations are safe and effective. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Really? Not safe and effective? So what about polio? Did it just up and disappear?

A double blind study is not the only way to study this stuff. Longitudinal designs would reflect a relationship if there was one to be seen. But at this point there isn't one. And the way you state your analogy is way off. The vaccines have been researched for efficacy more than what you're saying. Based on your argument, Black Diamond should get a bunch of climbers together and have them do fall tests because somebody thinks double-backing their harness causes a skin infection with a double blind method of not allowing some to double back the buckle.

I'm curious what you would propose? A true double blind scenario? So essentially risk the lives of children when no evidence warrants it? And even then, the results would be skewed due to the effects of herd immunity. So do a double blind study and give everybody a dose of smallpox to test the vaccine? If your kid croaks,surprise, you got the placebo! Seriously though, you're dwelling on that one method when there are plenty of other research models and statistical tests to evaluate the effectiveness and risks. The reason you can't find a study you're looking for is because they aren't done at that level very often. If they are, something really warrants it and the conditions are very different. So again, why go through the expense, risk, work, risk, time, risk to do a study that nothing supports doing? Plenty of longitudinal data and experimental designs showing effectiveness and risk lower than the repercussions. A double blind study does not have to be done to show this.

Also, you can go to pubmed and type in "human vaccine efficacy" and see the a snapshot of the work being done and choose which one shows data that they are effective means against some conditions. And those that are on binding, delivery mechanisms, etc will likely have plenty of cited sources in their review of literature. Take your pick. And I'm sure you can find data on infant mortality rates, survivability, and all sort of other relevant information. And if you have a viable source citing the risks that are popular to claim right now, please post it, as I've yet to see one of those that hasn't been torn apart. If the data truly supports it, I'd be more than willing to change my tune. I did a paper on incentive spirometers in nursing school just because I started finding data that they weren't effective in many of the cases they were used. Instructors weren't happy about it and talked to me about my patient care, but I had the data to show them. And they backed off and changed their emphasis.

You are completely correct that all medical procedures carry risk. A simple IV could lead to an infection leading to sepsis. And there is an off chance that a med won't be effective--like birth control. But courts aren't a viable source of the efficacy of the drug. In the same way small guys can get buried in the system, lenient courts can overlook facts and data because the rules of the law are well plaid. Why do you think a lot of people don't like practicing medicine in certain areas of the country-- very "generous" juries regardless of the facts.

In the U.S., vaccines have reduced or eliminated many infectious diseases that once routinely killed or harmed many infants, children, and adults. However, the viruses and bacteria that cause vaccine-preventable disease and death still exist and can be passed on to people who are not protected by vaccines. Vaccine-preventable diseases have many social and economic costs: sick children miss school and can cause parents to lose time from work. These diseases also result in doctor's visits, hospitalizations, and even premature deaths.

So Eye, if the goal of the medical world is solely to advance their corporate greed, it seems to me having people unvaccinated would be more beneficial to line their pockets with cash.

There are two ways of looking at the reason for the vaccine court. One is your way. The other is that it is needed due to the litigious nature of our culture. So the court was created so that the corporations or big pharmacy had protections in place so they could focus on creating products and advancing medicine without the hinderance of being sued by every tom dick and Harry who felt they were in some way harmed.

Ok, so Eye you read my statement about my wife too literally. Of course there are possible side affects to every injection. I guess it should read as my wife wouldn't do something to our child that she felt was risky.

I do not deny that there is greed in the medical world. My wife is not greedy, if she was we'd be living in the city working for some private medical firm. Instead we're in the country working at a rural health facility because that's what she likes, helping rural communities. The majority of my wife's colleagues are also not greedy. One colleague works for 6 months in the US and then volunteers the other 6 months at an under served hospital in Guatemala. Another, works for a year or so saving up enough funding, then works in Somalia for free spending much of her own money on supplies. My wife often will work 180-190 hrs a month even though her pay is based on 170 hrs of work. Even so outside of these "normal" hours she looks at patients labs, calls Drs, and checks with nurses when she's at home off duty.

Really? Not safe and effective? So what about polio? Did it just up and disappear?

So what happened to Scarlet Fever? Typohid fever? Did they just up and disappear? (apparently the answer is YES!).

Helen Keller went blind from scarlet fever; it and typhoid killed tens of thousands 100 years ago.

No vaccination was ever created for for scarlet fever, and none was widely used for typhoid. Still, they are COMPLETELY GONE now.

Why? I credit nutrition and sanitation, but I GUARANTEE you that if there had been widespread vaccinations for them people would be saying "look what vaccinations have done to eliminate scarlet fever!"

Again, polio may well have been wiped out by vaccinations. The sorry truth is we just don't know.

You can give your kids all the shots you want. I gave mine the DPT series and nothing more, so far.

I am not anti-vaccination but frankly the lack of objective information is appalling.

In the U.S., vaccines have reduced or eliminated many infectious diseases that once routinely killed or harmed many infants, children, and adults. However, the viruses and bacteria that cause vaccine-preventable disease and death still exist and can be passed on to people who are not protected by vaccines. Vaccine-preventable diseases have many social and economic costs: sick children miss school and can cause parents to lose time from work. These diseases also result in doctor's visits, hospitalizations, and even premature deaths.

So Eye, if the goal of the medical world is solely to advance their corporate greed, it seems to me having people unvaccinated would be more beneficial to line their pockets with cash.

There are two ways of looking at the reason for the vaccine court. One is your way. The other is that it is needed due to the litigious nature of our culture. So the court was created so that the corporations or big pharmacy had protections in place so they could focus on creating products and advancing medicine without the hinderance of being sued by every tom dick and Harry who felt they were in some way harmed.

Ok, so Eye you read my statement about my wife too literally. Of course there are possible side affects to every injection. I guess it should read as my wife wouldn't do something to our child that she felt was risky.

I do not deny that there is greed in the medical world. My wife is not greedy, if she was we'd be living in the city working for some private medical firm. Instead we're in the country working at a rural health facility because that's what she likes, helping rural communities. The majority of my wife's colleagues are also not greedy. One colleague works for 6 months in the US and then volunteers the other 6 months at an under served hospital in Guatemala. Another, works for a year or so saving up enough funding, then works in Somalia for free spending much of her own money on supplies. My wife often will work 180-190 hrs a month even though her pay is based on 170 hrs of work. Even so outside of these "normal" hours she looks at patients labs, calls Drs, and checks with nurses when she's at home off duty.

No, I don't trust the CDC at all. Do you think the FDA is doing a good job protecting your food while making it legal for GMO's, irradiated produce, and beef fed chicken shit from chickens fed downer cows (Yummy Yummy!)?

Alphabet Government Agencies were created to protect the corporations, not you. That is why those who work for them work for the same corporations they are supposed to regulate before AND after they "serve" to "protect" you.

You are assuming that vaccinations prevent disease. Maybe they do. But think of the windfall to the drug companies if they caused an epidemic of autoimmune diseases with no cure...which is actually happening (not saying they are due to vaccinations necessarily). Talk about a cash cow.

I am sorry if I came off hard on your wife I have plenty of friends in the medical profession who have the best of intention. I just don't trust my life to them.

I don't think the alphabet agencies were created to protect corporations, but I do think that in recent times they have been corrupted by corporations, but that's our government these days. You need to have some level of governance to protect the consumer from the corporations. I do get what some corps are trying to do. I mean Americans want cheap food, and companies want to protect the bottom line. It's your choice as the consumer as to which product you use. You can't always blame the agency, at some point you have to wake up and realize that these companies use that shit because the masses are willing to sacrifice health for cheapness.

Really? That's your response? Seriously man, you should take a few classes on this stuff and really learn about a) research methods and statisticsb) how vaccines work, various forms of viruses and complications, and how a couple of small outbreaks with yet unknown development does not indicate in any way a breakdown of the science

Part of this response is a "pfft, really dude? Come on!" type thing. And the other part is serious. You obviously have a strong opinion on this stuff, but have just enough information to be dangerous. Not saying it will change your mind on the topic, but at least the arguments would be more along the lines of "hmmmm how do I counter that as those are good points?" rather than "hmmm where do I start" Throwing this news story up as evidence to support your statement really illustrates this. That alpinist (can't remember his name) was killed recently by rock fall. Posting that this shows that helmets are obsolete would be the equivalent of what posting this news story does.